Monthly Archives: February, 2025
Ronen Perry, ‘Harmful Precautions’
INTRODUCTION According to the conventional definition of reasonableness, commonly known as the Hand formula, a person acts unreasonably (hence negligently) toward another if they fail to take precautions whose cost for the actor is lower than the expected loss for the other that these precautions can prevent. While law-and-economics theorists have advocated and courts have […]
Tereszkiewicz, Południak-Gierz and Walczak, ‘The Digital Vulnerability of Insurance Consumers and Personalised Pricing of Insurance Products’
ABSTRACT This Chapter analyses the phenomenon of the personalised pricing of insurance products under the European Union regulatory framework on consumer and data protection law. Specifically, focusing on the personalised pricing of insurance products, the Chapter explores the complex relationship between the provisions of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and those of the Unfair Commercial […]
‘How Tort Law Thwarts the Fight Against Biased Healthcare’
Maytal Gilboa, ‘Biased but Reasonable: Bias Under the Cover of Standard of Care’, 75 Georgia Law Review 489 (2023). Healthcare settings have long been sites where minoritized patients have needed to fight to receive adequate quality of care. The recent debates about physicians not wearing masks in hospitals and clinics to protect immunocompromised and vulnerable […]
‘European Copyright Society Opinion on Copyright and Generative AI’
Executive Summary: The ECS considers that the current development of generative artificial intelligence (AI), under the regulatory framework set up by the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) of 2019 and the AI Act of 2024 (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), leaves legal uncertainties and several open questions. The following issues require, in the […]
‘What’s going on with AI copyright authorship?’
It’s been a while since we covered the AI authorship debate here at Llama Towers, despite it being one of the first AI legal questions we discussed here nearly 10 years ago (time flies when you’re having fun, eh?). The gap has largely been because everyone’s attention has been centred squarely on copyright infringement, leaving […]
James Taylor, ‘Informed Consent, Autonomy, False Beliefs, and Ignorance’
ABSTRACT It is widely believed that health policy should take care to ensure that persons are informed about the expected risks as well as the anticipated advantages of medical procedures. This is often justified by a concern for the moral value of personal autonomy, as it is widely believed that to the extent that a […]
Call for Papers: ‘The molecules of private law’: University of Oxford, 11-12 September 2025
This symposium aims to stimulate discussion of the fundamental building blocks of private law. Examples include such concepts as obligation, duty, responsibility, thing, ownership, personality, capacity, patrimony, right, power, privilege, immunity. These and other basic constituents of legal thought continue to generate debate, controversy, and confusion in the 21st century, not only in long-established fields […]
Alessandro Drigo, ‘Future Generations in Climate Litigation: Early Whispers of an Intergenerational Law?’
ABSTRACT The ‘migration’ of Future Generations from a moral to a judicial context represents a captivating development in contemporary legal discourse. Recent years have seen a surge in courts across various nations addressing the intersection of future generations and climate litigation. This nexus, far from being coincidental or sporadic, epitomizes a deeper societal and legal […]
Haim Abraham, ‘Private Nuisance, Looking Out, Gazing In’: University of Toronto and Online, 14 February 2025
Haim Abraham of the University College London will speak on the relation between private nuisance claims and privacy, applying rights-based and queer theory lenses. Haim will speak for about 45 minutes after which there will be a Q&A period … (more, Zoom link)
Carmen Ungureanu, ‘The European consumer: a case of mistaken identity?’
ABSTRACT European consumers enjoy protection, if they are natural persons who act outside professional purposes and have as counterparts professionals (traders). Applying the test of the three conditions, it is possible that consumers who do not need protection to fall within the scope of the consumer protection laws. This is the reason why we are […]